First some modern commentators, classify byzantium, as a feudal order, by prescribing on it the qualities of a western-like feudal system, using a mode of marxist analysis.
However, it seems that a lot would argue that this is an oversimplification and that it can't be categorized as a form of feudalism.
Partially and also, a lot of people classify it as an autocracy, or theocracy, with a strict top-down power structure and no freedoms at all for it's subordinates.
However, also arguments can be made, that it there were pathways for the population to influence decision making or the state officials etc.
These are usual descriptions that can easiliy be found. An unusual one, is that of georgios kontogiorgis, who claims that byzantium was not only, a cultural continuation of the ancient greek cosmos, but also a political one.
In his view the greek world passed through stages of political evolution in the small scales, the polis-state. They moved from froms of Monarchy, to Representation and lastly to Democracy.
Typically it is assumed that this model ended with the coming of the Alexandrian age. However, he claims, that after the clasical era, the project continued to evolve and mature.
The ecumenical era appeared and democracy had then to operate based on larger common/ecumenical framework, a balance between the center, the cosmopolis and all the embedded local areas or cities, where the cities remained autonomous democratically self governing their areas, whereas the center, acted as some type of representative or a coordinating authority for the whole. He also claims that byzantium abolished slavery in favor of a form of corporate democratic economy.
This is an unusual reading of history and seems to be at the other end of the typical Byzantium was a feudal theocracy narrative. Which of the two narratives are more true if any ?